All posts tagged Mitt Romney

Last night, Republicans were dealt a severe loss. They received a terrible drubbing in the presidential race — losing previously Republican states of Virginia, Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, and Nevada. They were summarily rejected by the industrial states of America — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin. New York City, home to an increasingly whiny class of rich elites, was the epicenter for a massive loss for Republicans in New York. Overall, it appears Obama also won the popular vote by a comfortable margin, beating out Mitt Romney by more than 2.3 percent.

The loss was magnified by the fact that secret money super-pacs heavily favored the Romney campaign. When you add in the fact that oil, gas, and coal companies spent nearly half a billion dollars to support Romney and other GOP candidates, it clearly shows the strength and marvel of Obama’s win.

The rejection of the rich, establishment, fossil fuel and extremist agendas was also apparent in the Senate. So far, democrats have extended their majority by two seats and have added an independent ally. In total, those who caucus with democrats on most issues include a much more solid majority of 55 seats. In the House, Republicans appear likely to lose 5 seats. Though Republican losses in the House are not enough to re-establish Democratic control, they do erode overall Republican Congressional influence.

The US electorate’s action against Republican extremism and obstructionism becomes even more clear when you dig down to look at who actually lost. The most extreme anti-abortion Republicans — Aikin and Mourdock — were both summarily defeated. Scott Brown, a tea partier, fell to the ardent progressive Elizabeth Warren. Sherrod Brown, both a climate and working class champion, handily defeated a tea party challenge from the anti-women’s rights Josh Mandel. The progressive Tim Kaine defeated ‘tax cuts for the rich’ George Allen. Patrick Murphy appears to have narrowly edged out tea party extremist Allen West. Stalwart progressive Alan Greyson has returned to the House and will likely prove a thorn in Republicans sides.

Among the more extreme Republicans (a relative term in a rather extreme party), only Michelle Bachman appears to have scraped by, barely eeking out a victory by a mere 4,000 votes.

Mitch McConnell, who lead the Republican hostage taking of the US economy in order to extort more tax cuts for the rich and to sabotage Obama’s re-election, has summarily failed. The Republican Party, who pushed ever more extreme conservative policies and who attempted to employ voter suppression over a swath of swing states, has summarily failed. This loss is nothing short of a new rejection of failed Republican policies and of denying Republicans the opportunity to re-assert their trickle-down economics, their anti-woman agenda, their anti-immigrant agenda, and an oil, gas, and coal backed set of policies that will result in a hellish heartland and flooded coastlines.

Republicans, who continue to rationalize ways to keep living in their bubble reality, will now attempt to claim that the American people have mandated that Obama and Democrats acquiesce to Republican demands. But this is nothing more than a false assertion. What the American people have mandated is that Republicans be less extreme. That they do not only represent the wealthy. That they do not continue to deny climate change. That they do not continue to endlessly seek to extort tax cuts for the rich. That they do not endlessly seek to de-regulate Wall Street. That they do not continue to push policies that encourage companies to ship US jobs overseas. That they do not continue to attack, demonize, and victimize immigrants. And that they do not continue their endless assault on women’s rights.

In order for Republicans, and America for that matter, to survive and thrive, they must begin to moderate their positions on all these issues. To fail to do so would be to consign them, and possibly the rest of us too, to the dust bin of history. And that is the lesson people should learn from this election. Democrats have already moderated their position on many, many issues. It is now the Republicans turn to cast away their extremist roots and meet us where we already stand — in the middle.

The United Auto Workers and Service Employees International Union filed an ethics complaint against Mitt Romney for illegally hiding profits he made during the US auto bailout yesterday.

According to news reports and the investigative reporting of Greg Palast, Mitt and Ann Romney invested $1 million dollars in GOP guru and mega-donor Paul Singer’s hedge fund — Elliott Management. Elliott then bought out major US auto parts manufacturer Delphi nearing bankruptcy at pennies on the dollar — 67 cents per share. As the US government began to bail out auto manufacturers GM and Chrysler, Singer demanded that Delphi also be bailed out saying “because if you don’t, we’ll shut you down.” This hostage taking of a key US industry by Singer resulted in shock from the government committee tasked with saving the US auto industry which described Singer’s actions as treating the US as a dictator would a third world country.

The government, seeing no other way to save the US auto industry without a parts supplier, acquiesced to Singer’s demands and Singer, who now was essentially in control of Delphi, used the funds to make Delphi profitable again. But only for investors. He cut workers pensions and went public with the corporation pushing share values to over 22 dollars. Delphi also profited by utilizing a number of other unsavory practices. The first was taking a page from Romney’s Bain Capital and shipping US jobs to China. Of the 25,000 well-paying union jobs that Delphi once employed, zero remain. Further, under the republican Singer, Delphi liquidated its US presence. Of the 29 factories Delphi once operated in the US, four remain. The rest all operate on foreign shores — in Mexico or China. Under Singer, Delphi continued its hostage-taking practices demanding exorbitant high prices for the parts it sold to GM. Singer’s combination of predatory market cornering, blackmailing the government for a bailout, shipping US jobs overseas, and destroying unions resulted in larger profits for his fund and his clients, the Romneys.

These profits were then taken and hidden in a tax haven on the Isle of Jersey.

Before we move on to the Romneys role in this action, it is important to note how critical the US automobile industry is to both the US economy and to US national security. The industry serves two major purposes in this respect. First, it results in the employment of millions of Americans through its direct manufacturing facilities and through its supply chain. And, second, it serves as an emergency industrial capacity in the event of a major war. During World War II, the US relied on this manufacturing might to become the ‘Armory of Democracy.’ Though somewhat diminished, this indigenous capacity remains a bastion of American strength in the world. Singer’s actions not only harmed workers and the larger US economy, they also directly harmed US national security — in favor of the Chinese.

Moving on, it is estimated that the Romneys made anywhere between 15 and 115 million dollars off of Singer’s predatory actions against a critical US Industry, the US government auto bailout, and against working Americans. And while this may be as unsavory as many of Romney’s other vulture capitalist ventures, Singer’s almost certainly criminal activities have, thus far escaped legal action.

That’s where the Ethics filing against Romney comes into play. The Romneys have not disclosed these profits. Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 politicians are legally obligated to make public all profits related to holdings that may be affected by a government action. In other words, it is illegal for politicians to keep secret investments that may benefit or may have benefited from government action, like the bailout Singer extorted for Delphi.

The Romneys predatory benefit from the auto bailout in the case of their Elliott/Delphi investment is just such an instance, while their failure to disclose this information is almost certainly breaking the law. So the US auto worker filing may just catch the Romneys by the tail of their heinous venture.

Romney’s own endless political and rhetorical attacks against the US auto industry, taken in this context seem ever more dark, underhanded, and vicious. Romney had called for Detroit to go bankrupt. Romney has cynically and viciously profited by preying on the bailout he opposed, further weakening the industry and hampering its recovery. And now Romney engages in a smear campaign waged against the US auto industry and the workers themselves. The only surprise is that workers and the US auto industry didn’t fire back at Romney sooner. Now, at least, it appears Romney’s vicious and self-serving acts have made him a determined enemy out of a great US industry. One wonders if the American people will be next to join in the fray?

Major news media seems to have been utterly hypnotized by W. Romney’s endless vacillations and changed policy positions. But taking a step back from the enormous cloud of smoke currently being produced by the Romney campaign, we can look at clear signals via both his chosen staff and his past preferences to see which way key policy choices are likely to go.

The first, and most critical, issue is women’s reproductive rights. As a haven for leaders who are willing to let their religious beliefs transfer to laws governing women’s bodies, the US has had a very rocky history of women’s rights. Key reproductive freedoms like access to birth control and family planning services were only won during a brief period of renaissance during the 1960s and 1970s. The establishment of an abortion freedom via the Roe v. Wade decision put the capstone on women’s reproductive freedom in America and ushered in a world-wide age of expanded rights for women around the globe.

Even as these new freedoms were put in place, though, enemies of women’s rights gathered in a generations-long attempt to return America to the dark days of back alley abortions and to a time when certain forms of contraception were illegal. This backlash gained steam during the 1980s and continues to this day in the form of, likely, four conservative Supreme Court justices who are ideologically disposed to overturning Roe v. Wade. It also includes a massive influx of legislators who have fought vehemently in Congress to curtail women’s access to birth control, family planning, key health services, and to overturn abortion rights in even the most damaging and harmful cases.

It is also worth noting that President Obama has indicated he will never acquiesce to the extreme anti-woman tendencies of the right wing and has threatened vetoes on any such legislation that crosses his desk.

These Republican anti-woman votes accounted for about 5% of all time spent by the 112th Congress. Among the leaders of this legislative war on women was none other than Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan. Ryan voted yes on almost every anti-woman bill submitted and has pushed for legislation making it illegal to perform an abortion even in cases of rape or incest. Ryan also pushed for a personhood bill that would make abortion even in the event of saving the mother’s life illegal. Ryan’s anti-woman votes parallel those of extremists Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock who have both said that even in cases of rape abortion should be illegal. Mourdock was recently quoted as saying that ‘God intended rape pregnancies’ (Source).

Riding in on this wave of Republican anti-women sentiment is Mitt Romney. Romney claimed as recently as a month ago that he would support legislation overturning Roe v. Wade. And his choice of running mate, Paul Ryan, is among the most anti-woman of a very anti-woman Republican House. Romney earlier noted that he would also overturn the Fair Pay Act. His campaign seems to sense a growing outrage among women and, so, over the past few weeks the Romney campaign has obfuscated past extreme anti-woman positions, attempting to appear kinder and gentler to women. But this is merely the desperate smoke screen of a candidate in jeopardy of losing and seeking to pander to all voters in hopes of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat (Source).

As we saw with Bush, promises of compassion made on the campaign trail have been about as valuable as a bucket of spit. And Romney, who has shown us only the endlessly changing face of a doppelganger, is certainly far from worthy of engendering trust.

In the case of a Romney election, there would be a very high risk that many women’s freedoms would be overturned. Romney-appointed justices would almost certainly be anti-abortion. Further, Romney would likely work with Republicans in Congress to continue to draft and expand anti-women legislation. A long march back to the days where women were treated as objects and property would have begun and much of the hard work of the brave American women of generations past is in dire danger of being removed should Romney be elected. Romney’s assurances to the contrary are merely empty words — a half-hearted and unclear pledge which holds no honor. To stake women’s future on such false promises and to ignore the Republican legacy of an endless war on women would be the very epitome of folly.

In its damning criticism of Mitt Romney, the Salt Lake Tribune article entitled Too Many Mitts based its endorsement of President Obama on the numerous instances where Mitt Romney has demonstrated himself to be an inconsistent, unreliable, untrustworthy, self-contradictory politician willing to say or do anything to be elected.

“As the party’s shape-shifting nominee,” the Tribune says, “Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: ‘Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?’ ”

Conversely the Tribune praised Obama as a “a competent leader who, against tough odds, has guided the country through catastrophe and set a course that, while rocky, is pointing toward a brighter day.”

The Tribune’s criticisms of Mitt for being a ‘shape shifter’ couples well with Mitt’s own record, a video sample of which is produced here. It also adds to the GOP’s own criticism of Mitt in which every major GOP primary contender accused Mitt of being a liar. Newt Gingrich when openly asked if he believed Romney was a liar on CBS’s morning show plainly stated ‘yes.’

What is, perhaps, more telling is that the major newspaper for a State primarily made up of Mormons would heap such damning criticism on one of their own. Perhaps the notion of Romney’s consistent and obvious instances of ‘bearing false witness’ was too much to bear. Or, perhaps, the far more moderate Mormon — Harry Reid — provides a better example of constancy and leadership than Mitt who often comes off as equal parts grasping, pandering, and elitist. It’s certainly an inelegant combination of traits and one not well disposed to effectively engaging the office of US President.

(David Siegel, above, told employees to vote for Romney or be at risk of losing their job)

According to recent news reports in the Huffington Post, Mitt Romney in a June conference call to the right-leaning National Federation of Independent Business told CEOs to tell their employees which Presidential Candidate to vote for. And in a separate telephone town hall with small business owners Romney urged the owners to relay their thoughts on to employees after demagoguing Obama for having an “anti-business” agenda (In These Times).

“I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections,” Romney said.

Boiled down, what Romney is essentially saying is ‘tell your employees to vote for me, otherwise they will lose their job.’

Such activity used to be illegal in the United States and was outlawed after numerous Robber Baron CEOs and company owners used various means to intimidate employees to vote for particular candidates. But, in the 80s, these laws were eroded both by non-enforcement and by numerous conservative judges of anti-union, anti-worker sentiment. The result was that by the 90s many companies were actively involved in mining their employees as a political base to push their agenda in Washington and to elect candidates whom the company board of directors considered favorable to short-term profits.

Voter intimidation, however, didn’t fully return until the Citizen’s United ruling greatly expanded employers rights to bully employees. And, as a result, companies from Bank of America to Koch Industries to Westgate Resorts are issuing letters to employees, threatening their jobs if Obama is elected.

“If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company,” Siegel, CEO of Westgate (self-styled king shown above) said in a letter telling his workers to vote for Romney. Author Allen, CEO (and petty dictator) of ASG Software in a letter to employees stated “If we fail as a nation to make the right choice on November 6th … I don’t want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come.”

Ironically, these ridiculous statements come as companies are seeing large growth in profits after Obama’s economic recovery again led the businesses forward. Westgate, in particular, has been very profitable and, despite increased revenues has done little to expand employee roles or increase employee compensation. So most of the profit is going to Siegel himself. Of his employees Siegel stated: “They’re my children and I’m like their Jewish Mother.”

The following is an illustration of the Romney campaign’s endlessly changing stance on the issues in an attempt to manipulate voters. It also shows how it is basically impossible to determine what Mitt Romney stands for except his own personal advancement.

Mitt Romney on Women’s Rights:

“I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”

“Roe v. Wade has gone too far.”

“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.”

“I never really called myself pro-choice.”

Mitt Romney on the Auto Bailout

“Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.”

“Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”

“I’ll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry’s come back.”

Mitt Romney on Privatizing Social Security:

“I’m not in favor of privatizing Social Security or making cuts.”

“Social Security’s the easiest and that’s because you can give people a personal account.”

Mitt Romney on Health Care Reform and the Affordable Care Act:

“If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”

“What works in one state may not be the answer for another.”

Mitt Romney on Capital Gains Tax Cut:

“It’s a tax cut for fat cats.”

“I believe the tax on capital gains should be zero.”

Mitt Romney on Osama Bin Laden:

“It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”

“He’s going to pay, and he will die.”

Mitt Romney on How Conservative He is:

“I was a severely conservative governor…”

“Relative to the leading candidates, some people see me as being more conservative.”

“I’m not the most conservative candidate.” “I’m not the most conservative candidate.”

Mitt Romney on Bank Bailouts:

“The TARP program… was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures.”

“When government is… bailing out banks… we have every good reason to be alarmed.”

Mitt Romney on Desire to Serve in Vietnam:

“It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.”

“I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.”

Mitt Romney on the Minimum Wage

“I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.”

“There’s no question raising the minimum wage… causes a loss of jobs.”

Mitt Romney on the NRA, the Second Amendment and Firearms

“I don’t line up with the NRA.”

“I’m a member of the [NRA].”

“I supported the assault weapon ban.”

“I don’t support any gun control legislation.”

“I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.”

“Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.”

In public service, there are few things as damning as ‘ends justify the means’ thinking. During the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, ‘ends justify the means’ political philosophy and doctrine created ‘rationale’ for all sorts of terrible practices and activities. By contrast, US political leaders have long been admired for sometimes accepting a degree of political damage for standing on principle. For rejecting the essential immorality of ‘ends justify the means.’

In one obvious case of honor over politics, John McCain corrected a woman who wrongly labeled Obama a ‘Muslim.’ In another, McCain attempted to reduce the kinds of ugly political advertising we’ve seen this campaign by supporting a campaign finance reform law on a bipartisan basis. An effort that was, ironically, largely overturned by the Citizen’s United Decision of the Supreme Court. In yet another, Obama hung the political capital of his entire presidency on an effort to make medical care more affordable, to expand access, and in doing so, took on some seriously powerful special interests who, to this day, have fought to demonize him.

Political integrity and avoidance of ‘ends justify the means’ thinking is a virtue in American politics that has, historically, manifest on both sides of the isle. And it is this virtue that former adviser to George Romney, Walt DeVries, so admired in the leader and public servant he worked with for 7 years.

In fact, it would be difficult not to admire the work of Romney’s father. George labored to build an American company that provided good paying jobs for regular Americans, that contributed to the American economy, and that provided a valuable product. George was in the business of making things. And in his transition to public service, George Romney also stood on principle, holding consistent positions — whether they were popular or not. In particular, George Romney campaigned for an income tax in Michigan, a political position that would, almost certainly, eject him from the republican party today.

This is in direct contrast to Mitt, who has profited from work, not done in America, not creating items of value for Americans, and not sustaining or creating good, well-paying jobs, but from reducing the wages of American workers and in shipping high-value American industries, like Sensata, to foreign shores where sweat-shop workers are paid only a pittance. This is in direct contrast to Mitt who asks for the wealthy to pay less in taxes and for the poor and middle class to bear a greater burden. And this is in direct contrast to the Mitt Romney who has run a political campaign that has contradicted itself, almost daily, on every issue.

According to DeVries:

Mitt Romney and the people around him see campaigns as television marketing and voters as targets to be manipulated. Voters, they believe, make up their minds late and will be swayed with saturation television advertising. The campaign managers seek — daily it seems — for a magic bullet to force on the electorate that will move undecided and weak voters to Romney. Policy papers, positions are rare and short on content and meaning.

This is damning critique from a former adviser to George Romney, who held the man in such high opinion for his ability to stand on principle and for the integrity of his character. And it shines a glaring light of contrast on Mitt’s own deep lack of integrity. His willingness to say or do anything that is, first and foremost, self-serving.

In business activity, such behavior is harmful enough. But when a person elected to public office acts in so self-serving a fashion, the effect can be devastating. In place after place around the world we have seen the dramatic failure of ‘ends justify the means’ thinking — in both business and government. ‘Ends justify the means’ results in systems that are not sustainable long-term. It is predatory and by virtue of its nature creates enemies. Though its initial grasping may result in success short-term, it plants the seeds for a dramatic long-term failure. We who have witnessed the tragedies — both in life and in the Greek epics — know this. Hubris, which is chained to ‘ends justify the means’ like a drowning man to a lead weight, is bound for a plunge.

The rise and fall of America may well be characterized in the contrast of these two men — father to son. One who stood on principle, the other enslaved by ‘ends justify the means.’ Providence grant we are spared a Romney Presidency and the risk of witnessing just such a precipitous fall from grace.

On November 5th, Bain Capital, the Company Mitt Romney founded, will ship 170 US jobs to China. On November 6th, Mitt Romney will ask to be your President.

Sensata technologies manufactured sensors for US automobiles, ships, electronics, appliances and aircraft. It was an inheritor of the intellectual capital of Honeywell, a set of knowledge and trade secrets that was a pivotal component of the US defense industry and critical to US national security. They served a broad range of customers from GM to the US military. The company helped to support a vital economy in Freeport Illinois. That was all before Bain Capital got a 51% stake in Sensata and began doing the terrible work of sending the company, its intellectual property and, most importantly, its jobs to China.

The first phase of this transfer of US jobs, intellectual and economic capital to China involved training Chinese workers and a transfer of the trade secrets of a US company to Chinese shores. Sensata employees were forced by Bain to train Chinese workers at the American facility. And when Chinese workers came, the company Mitt Romney founded forced Sensata to lower the American flag. So, for a time, American workers labored under a de-flagged US company to hand over jobs and US trade secrets related to national security to the Chinese even as this activity created big profits for Bain company executives and major share holders.

It is important to note that the loss of these jobs from US shores doesn’t help the impoverished Chinese workers who are forced by China and by companies like Bain to work in terrible sweat-shop conditions at low wages and at little hope for economic advancement. So what Bain’s transfer of Sensata jobs to China represents is the favoring of building slave wage overseas jobs in pursuit of short-term profits over US middle class jobs, building the American dream, and long-term prosperity at home.

The second phase of Bain’s activity at Sensata will wrap up on November 5th, the day before the US Presidential election, when Sensata’s 170 workers are fired and the transfer of US jobs from this vital US industry to China is complete.

More than anything else, this is Mitt Romney’s legacy. He founded Bain Capital. He pioneered its outsourcing and shipping US jobs overseas for profit practices in the 1980s and 1990s. He developed that model for liquidating US jobs and replacing them with low-wage work overseas which so many of the greedy in this country have used for their own enrichment. So, sadly, Sensata is but the most recent of scores and scores of US companies whose jobs were sent to China as Bain profited. And today, as a major share-holder of Bain Capital, holding more than 8 million dollars in company stocks, Romney still profits from the terrible practices he put in place when he sat at Bain’s helm.

These facts weren’t lost on Sensata’s workers who organized a petition with 35,000 signatures pleading with Mitt Romney not to ship their jobs to China. Thus far, all they’ve earned is silence.

Yet Mitt Romney is asking Americans for a favor on November 6th. He’s asking us to trust him. He’s asking us to ignore the Americans who worked at Sensata and so many other US companies whose jobs and intellectual capital were sent to China. He’s asking us to believe he holds Americans’ best interests at heart, despite making large profits from shipping US jobs to China and keeping that money in a secret Cayman Islands bank account in order to dodge paying US taxes and support the American public interest. He’s asking us to believe he is a patriotic American even though it is the practice of the company he founded to lower the US flag on American workers who are forced to labor to train their Chinese replacements.

How can we trust a man who built his legacy on a foundation of harm to Americans? How can we trust a man who, even now, ignores the plight of the workers the company he founded continues to victimize, continues to push onto US government assistance roles and remove their hopes of economic independence? And how can we trust a man who has, throughout his entire career in business favored China over America and personal profits over the best interests of the American people?

Remember all the hullabaloo earlier this year over the company Mitt Romney founded — Bain Capital? Remember all the news reports, blogs, and personal testimonials about people who lost their jobs after Bain bought out companies, drove them to bankruptcy by taking out debt and paying themselves via checks, and then shipped jobs overseas to places like China where workers were forced to work for less than a dollar an hour in sweat-shop conditions? Remember how Bain was exposed for pioneering the model for sending the jobs of US workers to places like China and profiting from it? Remember how many other companies in the US then duplicated this model, in essence, creating a massive industry entirely dedicated to devastating America’s middle class jobs?

Well, it’s still happening. Bain is still shipping US jobs to China and Romney is still making money from Bain’s actions. Money that will likely end up in Romney’s foreign tax shelter so he can avoid contributing to the very US government whose helm he is now exerting every effort to attain.

In Freeport Illinois today, over 170 employees of Sensata Technologies are now at imminent risk of losing their jobs. The reason? Bain capital recently gained a controlling stake in Sensata and is now planning to outsource the 170 middle class jobs at Sensata to China. Workers may now have only days before they lose their jobs.

Sensata is a high-tech industry. It produces sensors used in ships, aircraft, automobiles, appliances and other electronics. It supports the supply chain of Ford and GM, both vital US industries. It is an example of a high-value industry that supports well paying jobs and helps to build vital communities around the US. Hundreds of families rely on the wages generated via Sensata’s virtuous cycle of innovation and production. In essence, making things. Many more jobs are also supported via the indirect impacts of this vital industry operating in America.

In addition, Sensata is a corporation that provides a critical service to the US military. It designs sensors that are used on military platforms and, as such, provides a vital and sensitive national-security related service.

As you have probably already surmised, shipping Sensata’s jobs to China is not just a devastating blow to 170 American families. Not only is it a devastating blow to Freeport, who will lose one of its vital industries. It is a blow to US national security to ship a critical feed-in to the US military manufacturing chain to China. It, in essence, knocks a chink in America’s armor.

It is, therefore, somewhat ironic to note that Bain has required Sensata employees to train Chinese workers to produce the equipment and sensors that Sensata designed. This process can be seen as a transfer of intellectual property related to a national security interest directly to China. In addition, and perhaps more disturbing, is the fact that Bain has required the company to lower the American flag for as long as a week while Bain employees were operating on Sensata grounds. No explanation was made for this rather alarming and disturbing practice. And it begs the question — what does Bain have against the American flag and the American nationality itself?

After bearing insult after insult to livelihood, to prospects, to happiness, and to that vital link with the shining value of Americanism and of the hopes she represents — life, liberty, equality — the workers of Sensata broke. They decided to take action.

In a brave show of rebellion against the oppressive and unAmerican outsourcing practices of Bain Capital, Sensata workers have organized a rally against Bain’s heinous activities. They’ve established Bainport — an ongoing protest against Bain’s outsourcing activity. And they will stage a rally there at 3 PM tomorrow to draw attention to a company Mitt Romney founded and that is the very legacy of his career in business. Workers from such companies as French Sampsonite have joined with Sensata workers and will vent their outrage for Bain’s unjust practices tomorrow. Julian Bond, former chair of the NAACP has also joined with Sensata workers in solidarity.

According to reports from the Rock River Times, a local newspaper, the employees of Sensata have gathered over 35,000 signatures for a letter to Mitt Romney, pleading for intervention in a destructive process that threatens so much that is vital to Freeport. The paper noted:

In July, the Freeport City Council unanimously passed a resolution calling on Romney to meet the workers and use his influence at Bain to intervene on their behalf. Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) echoed their call during a trip to Freeport later that month. The situation has even become an issue in the congressional race in Illinois’ 17th district.

So the question comes to Mitt Romney. Why? Why do you keep hurting the American people? Why do you risk American security by shipping vital technology jobs to China? Why have you sought and earned so much profit from so much harm? And why, if you care about Americans, if you really care as much as you have said on the campaign trail over the past two weeks, why are you allowing the destructive processes you pioneered to continue?

If you, Mitt Romney, really do disavow your heinous and disrespectful remarks about 47% of Americans, if you really do feel sorry, then why not use your clout to stop this harm? Though you are not currently the CEO of Bain, you are certainly a major share holder with rights to the company proper. If you so chose, you could use your clout as founder. You could stop the system of harm that you designed from continuing its awful work.

And what do you, Americans, think of someone running for President who has profitted so much from the liquidation of the American worker? Who continues to profit from their liquidation? Is this man patriot enough to be President? And could he be trusted to use that Presidential power in the interest of the people of America?

As a measure of public opinion, it’s difficult to beat an uncensored Internet. You just have to do a little digging. A search here, a search there. Well, one meme has just cropped up that may surprise you. Or, as in the case of many, it may simply confirm what you already knew.

Find out for yourself by Googling or, even better, Google image searching “Completely Wrong” and see what you come up with.

For my part, I’ll leave you with this hint provided by Florida Today.

And just one more hint:

Americans who bust their asses at work, in volunteer, community service, or in the quest to find a job able to support a family, don’t like it when you call them moochers. Further, it is the height of arrogance and ignorance for someone to claim that the people who ‘mooched’ likely include people whose jobs were shipped overseas or lost when ‘a completely wrong someone’ profited by driving American companies into bankruptcy.

Completely wrong. Google it.

EDIT: Seems to be some speculation that a blogger created this Google bomb. I can assure you, and my wife who notified me will bear witness, this Google bomb was entirely self inflicted.

EDIT: After seeing the Vice Presidential debate, I think I know now who threw the pie. Say it ain’t so, Joe!

UPDATE: Please watch the video below to see how Romney’s Bain Capital is still shipping US jobs to China:

It’s really no news that republicans hate US alternative energy. Across the country over the past few years they’ve done everything a political party can do to fight renewables. They’ve blocked legislation, they’ve waged verbal and political campaigns against the new technologies, and they’ve jiggered laws and legislation in an attempt to dissuade people from adopting alternative energy sources at every turn. The Volt, as just one example, has turned into a political whipping boy of the right blamed and smeared with each new success. Solyndra, in another example, is a strawman that has ridden shotgun with Mitt Romney all over the campaign trail.

Republicans, clearly divested of their fake jobs interest, have targeted an industry that directly supports hundreds of thousands of American jobs, 3 times the average number of jobs per dollar spent when compared to fossil fuels, and indirectly supports over 8.5 million jobs. But, it’s pretty clear, given republicans’ actual policies, removed from rhetoric, that they don’t care one whit about these jobs or any other so long as they’ve got a political axe to grind.

Enter yesterday’s presidential debates when Mitt Romney, telling a lie a minute, suddenly opened all guns on alternative energy in this off-color and patently false statement:

“And these [clean energy] businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, have gone out of business.”

This statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only has renewable energy production doubled since Obama began his term in 2009, of the 34 alternative energy companies having received government loans through the stimulus program, only 3 are now in bankruptcy. Nine percent does not make half. But since when did arithmetic ever bother Mitt once he’d gotten onto the whopper roll?

Romney’s false claim goes further than even its blatant and gross exaggeration would indicate. It creates an impression that alternative energy in the US is an abject failure. An implication which couldn’t be further from the truth. And with new US wind installations outpacing every other form of new energy except the, soon to go bust, natural gas, Romney has decided to level a vicious political assault against a sector that is critical to current US energy security as well as economic growth.

We all know that republicans like Romney believe that more drilling can power the entire US and achieve energy independence all in one go. It can’t. The costs for the new fuels are too high, the rate of consumption is too great, and the rate of overall depletion is too high. The republican push for reliance on these depleting fuels would only set the US for another bubble and bust. Even now, many natural gas companies are financially struggling due to the climbing costs of fractured shale production. On the side of oil, fracked extraction of that resource requires prices higher than $90 per barrel to remain profitable. A high price Romney smugly blames on Obama even though it is a simple reality of the market force of depletion acting on the fossil energy sources Romney wants us to be reliant on.

Yet these internal dynamics don’t even take into account the dramatic and growing impact of fossil fuel emissions on climate change. Nor do they consider that the cost of renewable energy, year over year, just keeps going down.

Just this year, another 20% of sea ice was lost in the Arctic. At the current rate of decline, ice-free summers will be seen in the Arctic within this decade. The impacts of this event are twofold — ever more extreme and prolonged extreme weather conditions in the northern hemisphere and enhanced melt in Greenland as it loses its insulating barrier of sea ice. But Mitt Romney doesn’t believe in climate change, remember?

Also this year, solar energy prices fell by over 65%. Now that’s change we can believe in. And as Mitt so snippetly noted, oil prices are high on average overall. Yet Mitt wants to bet the farm and the country, for that matter, on an increasingly expensive and difficult to extract resource.

Romney’s assault on the legitimacy of renewable energy is not only an assault on increasingly less expensive energy and on dealing responsibly with climate change, it is an assault on the American dream. Imagine if Romney’s false vision of half US alternative energy industries going bankrupt came true. Imagine all the lost jobs and livelihoods. Imagine all the failed innovations. Imagine how far back both the US and the world will be pushed if that dark vision becomes reality.

Perhaps Mitt Romney wasn’t lying entirely when he made this statement after all. Perhaps he was instead telegraphing his own plan to drive half of US alternative energy industries into bankruptcy even as he pushes for greater dependence on the dirty dangerous and depleting oil, gas, and coal. It’s really funny how neurotic people with bad intentions tend to project in this way. So we have to wonder, was Mitt foreshadowing the result of a Romney presidency?

Perhaps Mitt Romney’s wish for alternatives is as it was with GM:

“Let them go bankrupt.”

Considering Mitt profited so much from American bankruptcies over the course of his career, I suppose he’d like that. Who knows, maybe his equity firms could still get a part of that action. US middle class alternative energy jobs going to China for more Romney bucks, anyone?